3 ms·

The key phrase in the question was 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm not versed in atmospheric physics, so of course I can't present an educated counter arguemen

by noobly 5y ago

The key phrase in the question was 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm not versed in atmospheric physics, so of course I can't present an educated counter arguement to the consensus, but it's complexity alone makes me skeptical of any consensus that's reached. It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? If you have any quality sources (books, videos, etc) I'd be interested in reading up more, it's an interesting topic that unfortunately developed a polarizing and polemic dialogue.

eloff 5y ago
> It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? Yeah, we go through ice age cycles. We've disrupted that now, and that might actually be a good thing on a long enough timescale. I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations. There's lots of evidence apart from simulations, which I'm also skeptical of. Some reading material to get an overview of what we know and don't know and how we know it: https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ This one specifically addresses your question about how much is attributable to humans vs natural factors: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-10...
- noobly 5y ago
  >I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations Yeah, models are known to fail and I was under the impression this contributes to consensus heavily. Thanks for the links, I'll read these tonight!
  - eloff 5y ago
    This is one of those rare few times where I feel I did not waste my time disagreeing with someone on HN. I like your attitude towards things you don't understand.
    - noobly 5y ago
      Thanks! Yeah it's all too easy to lump people into stubborn camps, especially on the internet, but I appreciate you not dismissing me. I like nature as much as the next guy, but I'm just naturally a bit skeptical and that can come off as entrenched in some contrary viewpoint I guess.

by noobly 5y ago

eloff 5y ago

> It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? Yeah, we go through ice age cycles. We've disrupted that now, and that might actually be a good thing on a long enough timescale. I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations. There's lots of evidence apart from simulations, which I'm also skeptical of. Some reading material to get an overview of what we know and don't know and how we know it: https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ This one specifically addresses your question about how much is attributable to humans vs natural factors: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-10...

noobly 5y ago
>I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations Yeah, models are known to fail and I was under the impression this contributes to consensus heavily. Thanks for the links, I'll read these tonight!
- eloff 5y ago
  This is one of those rare few times where I feel I did not waste my time disagreeing with someone on HN. I like your attitude towards things you don't understand.
  - noobly 5y ago
    Thanks! Yeah it's all too easy to lump people into stubborn camps, especially on the internet, but I appreciate you not dismissing me. I like nature as much as the next guy, but I'm just naturally a bit skeptical and that can come off as entrenched in some contrary viewpoint I guess.